2020 US Election (Part Two)

[Berzerker]

I think the ironic part is that despite the allegations against Trump being way more credible you've been dismissing them for years, but you are leaping to make a big deal about Biden. Is this part of being an "independent libertarian"?

The number one Trumpist leaps to the fore yet again.

I get it, admiring yourself as a "contrarian" means you have to pick these fights, but it doesn't keep the rest of us from thinking you are just abjectly ridiculous.

Patine, as you can see our local committed contrarian has chosen now to make a desperate effort to pick another fight and disrupt the thread.

I posted a story about a woman accusing Joe Biden of sexual assault and you picked the fight.

I'm impressed by how diligent you are about this "committed contrarianism." Can you explain how it differs from basic trolling?

According to the forum rules accusing people of trolling is trolling. I dont troll, I express opinions that differ from yours and you get mad.

I mean, it just seems like "get on a tangent and be as disruptively offensive as possible." But I'm perhaps missing something there.

Posting a story about a woman accusing Joe Biden of sexual assault is disruptively offensive, but comparing her to a cockroach is not?

Oh, another question. What do you get out of it, really? You seem pretty universally disliked here, and it appears much the same on other forums you frequent, at least the one I know of. Is that a consequence, or an objective? Is whatever you are getting out of it somehow "worth it" to you, or is part of being a committed contrarian a perverse preference for being disliked?

I dont frequent other forums, back when Poly was politically active most of my arguments were with the resident Republicans who defended Moore and Kavanaugh with the same kind of arguments you used to defend Biden. If you liked me I'd have to re-examine my existence, but you have the credibility of something that popped out of the wall. No, I apologize to cockroaches. I have no evidence lying and hypocrisy are traits they share with you.

Now who at Poly dislikes me?

For example, the video Berzerker posted would never cross my path if Berzerker hadn't posted it, and since Berzerker posted it I didn't bother watching it. Even if someone else had posted it the "TJDS" watermark in the corner, which I figured out stands for 'The Jimmy Dore Show,' says 'internet kook' to me and makes it very unlikely I would ever press play.

Fake news? Dore let the victim speak for herself, so did Halper.

I was against Kavanaugh because he never seemed to grow out of his privileged frat boy state, not because of what he might well have done while he actually was a privileged frat boy.

So sexual assault aint a problem for you?

It's more eloquent that basic trolling, I'll give it that. Basic trolling is pretty coarse, you have to admit.

If you need a definition of coarse, you'll find Tim's picture in the dictionary.

That means we'll have two likely sex offenders running in the GE - which means it won't be an election issue.

The key to beating Trump is having the moral high ground, Biden wont have it and metoo may sit out the election.

Reminds me of that poll showing that Republican Voters having 30 points lower recognition of the dangers of corona just because. That sort of divide is very dangerous with such a factual thing as "how dangerous is Corona".

Red parts of the country tend to be rural and out of the way, ie flyover country. Major cities serve as ground zeroes so eventually the number of cases will go up just about everywhere. For my neck of the woods Kansas City is the main focus of the virus.

Biden is more like Trump than Tim would ever care to admit to.

Tim is more like Trump than Tim would ever care to admit

The accusation of Kavanaugh had no hard evidence, but it was still useful by showing the world that he is incompetent and unable to assume the duties of a SC judge

too bad we ignored all that.

Secondly, there will never be 'hard evidence' for old cases like this. That doesn't mean there's zero evidence. All Roy Moore had was circumstantial but added all up it painted a pretty picture. Not enough to send him to jail, maybe, but enough to make an informed decision.

Reade told a few people about Biden back when it happened, Ford did too later if not at the time. It was how Kavanaugh responded that largely made him look guilty.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

And our favorite Trump defender returns with a wall of text and quotes probably quote mined in some misleading fashion. Is anyone on the forum willing to take the time to slog through that and let me know if it hits some spectacular new level of absurdity or is just more of the usual?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

This is the, I dunno, between 5th and 10th time I'm quoting it on this website yet many posters keep repeating, like robots, that the Electoral College is about giving small states a say. It's pretty amazing tbh.

Well, there's not really much doubt that even though the origins are as stated it hasn't been kept around for the last hundred years plus as a sop to the slave states. Other than "smaller states want to keep it" what is the likely answer for why it hasn't been done away with?

 

[Berzerker]

And our favorite Trump defender returns with a wall of text and quotes probably quote mined in some misleading fashion. Is anyone on the forum willing to take the time to slog through that and let me know if it hits some spectacular new level of absurdity or is just more of the usual?

I never defended anyone for sexual assault, much less compared their victim to a cockroach

 

[Lexicus]

Well, there's not really much doubt that even though the origins are as stated it hasn't been kept around for the last hundred years plus as a sop to the slave states. Other than "smaller states want to keep it" what is the likely answer for why it hasn't been done away with?

Because amending the Constitution is absurdly difficult.

 

[Patine]

Because amending the Constitution is absurdly difficult.

Write a new one. The majority of sovereign nations today, and over half of U.S. States, have had more than one Constitution in their history. It's political healthy, not terrifying, as a concept - at least in principal.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Because amending the Constitution is absurdly difficult.

Point.

 

[Zardnaar]

Write a new one. The majority of sovereign nations today, and over half of U.S. States, have had more than one Constitution in their history. It's political healthy, not terrifying, as a concept - at least in principal.

They can't.

Well theoretically they could but it's same problem they would have revising the current one.

SCOTUS can strike any attempt to do so as unconstitutional.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

They can't.

Well theoretically they could but it's same problem they would have revising the current one.

SCOTUS can strike any attempt to do so as unconstitutional.

Not if the amendment process laid out in the constitution is followed. A document that doesn't include revision/dismissal procedures is a poor document.

 

[Patine]

They can't.

Well theoretically they could but it's same problem they would have revising the current one.

SCOTUS can strike any attempt to do so as unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court would be legally powerless if the Constitution they are tasked to interpret at the highest level was replaced. Also, the U.S. Constitution makes no claim to be a permanent or perpetual document in it's text (only the "Union of States," is specifically stated so to be), and there is no indication in any of their writings that the Founding Fathers intended a permanent or perpetual document of governance. in fact, to the contrary, Thomas Jefferson believed to then new nation should have whole new Constitution EVERY GENERATION, to deal with the ways of governance facing that generation and their times, exemplified by his quote, "a young man should not wear an old man's jacket." Of course, Jefferson was ALSO of the mindset that making a new Constitution did not necessarily require the permission, participation, or ratification of the sitting government, especially if they had betrayed the concepts upon which the nation was built, and that obsoleting them with a new governing document, and finishing the job with violent overthrow of those who refused to accept the popular will of the nation, as exemplified by another quote of his, "from time to time, the Tree of Liberty must be watered with the Blood of Tyrants." So, by pure legalistic intentions of origin, alone, in a void, you are incorrect. However, from a pragmatic and practical viewpoint, things are much more difficult that Jefferson could have EVER envisioned.

 

[Zardnaar]

The Supreme Court would be legally powerless if the Constitution they are tasked to interpret at the highest level was replaced. Also, the U.S. Constitution makes no claim to be a permanent or perpetual document in it's text (only the "Union of States," is specifically stated so to be), and there is no indication in any of their writings that the Founding Fathers intended a permanent or perpetual document of governance. in fact, to the contrary, Thomas Jefferson believed to then new nation should have whole new Constitution EVERY GENERATION, to deal with the ways of governance facing that generation and their times, exemplified by his quote, "a young man should not wear an old man's jacket." Of course, Jefferson was ALSO of the mindset that making a new Constitution did not necessarily require the permission, participation, or ratification of the sitting government, especially if they had betrayed the concepts upon which the nation was built, and that obsoleting them with a new governing document, and finishing the job with violent overthrow of those who refused to accept the popular will of the nation, as exemplified by another quote of his, "from time to time, the Tree of Liberty must be watered with the Blood of Tyrants." So, by pure legalistic intentions of origin, alone, in a void, you are incorrect. However, from a pragmatic and practical viewpoint, things are much more difficult that Jefferson could have EVER envisioned.

You may as well start wishing for the moon.

 

[Zardnaar]

Not if the amendment process laid out in the constitution is followed. A document that doesn't include revision/dismissal procedures is a poor document.

It dies you just gave to get 75% to agree to it.

Right now I'm basically living in a police state. Can't even leave. What is this the USSR?

 

[Patine]

You may as well start wishing for the moon.

Those who have the most to gain by the retention of the status quo, and the most to lose by true and needed reform and change, who are always a small minority, want everyone to believe in the UTTER IMPOSSILIBITY of change ever happening, as though it were a law of physics. I see you have drank deeply of their toxic, fatalistic, nihilistic brew. But history shows that attitude has no truth to it at all. In all untenable situations, something eventually has to give!

 

[Zardnaar]

Those who have the most to gain by the retention of the status quo, and the most to lose by true and needed reform and change, who are always a small minority, want everyone to believe in the UTTER IMPOSSILIBITY of change ever happening, as though it were a law of physics. I see you have drank deeply of their toxic, fatalistic, nihilistic brew. But history shows that attitude has no truth to it at all. In all untenable situations, something eventually has to give!

It's changing it's just not gonna be quick. And you can't really hurry it along +Trump might).

Attempts to hurry things along usually end badly. Hell look how 1776 turned out vs sticking with the empire.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Those who have the most to gain by the retention of the status quo, and the most to lose by true and needed reform and change, who are always a small minority, want everyone to believe in the UTTER IMPOSSILIBITY of change ever happening, as though it were a law of physics. I see you have drank deeply of their toxic, fatalistic, nihilistic brew. But history shows that attitude has no truth to it at all. In all untenable situations, something eventually has to give!

Agreed, but "untenable situation" starts somewhere around where food leaves off. The US is not going to put down their lattes and look up from their cell phones to kick off a revolution against their untenable situation any time soon.

 

[Patine]

Agreed, but "untenable situation" starts somewhere around where food leaves off. The US is not going to put down their lattes and look up from their cell phones to kick off a revolution against their untenable situation any time soon.

I'd say one of the only things stopping full out civil war, or at least an "American Spring," or some such is an old tactic from the Roman Emperor's playbooks to stop revolts in Rome while the Legions were off on the frontiers, campaigning - panem et circenses, or bread and circuses, or at least a modern variant of it.

 

[Lexicus]

Write a new one. The majority of sovereign nations today, and over half of U.S. States, have had more than one Constitution in their history. It's political healthy, not terrifying, as a concept - at least in principal.

I absolutely would support a new Constitution - problem is, with the balance of social forces currently existing in the US we'd end up with a Constitution like fascist Italy and that would be bad

 

[cardgame]

November 2020

Why is voter turnout so low? I just don't understand what we did wrong. This is Bernie's fault.

 

[IglooDame]

Why is voter turnout so low? I just don't understand what we did wrong. This is Bernie's fault.

My own thinking is that he has focused his (primary) campaign on beating Trump. Voters realize it bodes for a very negative general election campaign, and as he becomes the de facto nominee, it's difficult to get really enthusiastic about someone who will accomplish their primary political promise the minute they sit down in the Oval Office. "Woot! A return to the anteTrump status quo in politics, that we hated but never realized quite how bad it could get!"

 

[Narz]

Trump will win again unless Joe gets Corona and kicks the bucket and Bernie runs